Date   

[citrusmodeling] Moderator’s Warning: Bogus Yahoo Mail Message

clipper841@att.net <clipper841@...>
 

SCAM ALERT**********BEWARE***********

Begin forwarded message:

From: "thecitrusbelt@... [citrusmodeling]" <citrusmodeling@...>
Date: August 19, 2014 7:48:12 AM PDT
Subject: [citrusmodeling] Moderator’s Warning: Bogus Yahoo Mail Message

 


Some of you may have received a message, supposedly from Yahoo, that reads:

 


“These is to inform you that there was an attempt to log in your account from an unrecognized location which we blocked. We kindly mandate that you Upgrade the security of your mail.”

 


Do not respond to this e-mail by giving the sender your personal Yahoo account information.  The sender is attempting to steal your account information.

 


Bob Chaparro

Moderator





Re: Well you know it's time to stop modeling for the night when...

paul.doggett2472@...
 

Hi All

         Yes been there done that and got the T-shirt

Paul Doggett UK


Re: Well you know it's time to stop modeling for the night when...

albyrno
 

 I re-motored a brass steam loco,put on track to test and it had a short.I removed boiler and it no longer had a short.After looking for a boiler to frame,headlight wiring,brake shoes contacting drivers or motor issue creating short,which I had spent hours looking for.I discovered that I had put the lead truck upside down when I reassembled loco the first time.
           Alan


Re: NC&STL XM 32 (NOT HM 32) rebuilds

Marty McGuirk
 

Update - BCW made a "reverse" Creco door - not an end AFAIK.

I must have been thinking of the Westerfield end, which is not suitable for the NC XMs since it was an "outy" and not an "inny"....

 


Re: NC&STL XM 32 (NOT HM 32) rebuilds

Benjamin Hom
 

Marty McGuirk wrote:
"You could build your own. The trickiest part to fabricate will be the ends. I think someone used to make them (John Greene at Bethlehem Car Works, maybe????)"
 
Westerfield offers the Hutchins ends from their Southern Class SU boxcar kits, but the inverse Hutchins ends aren't availables AFAIK.  Andy Clermont fabricated them from styrene for D&H 36 ft DS boxcar kibashes from the MDC kit years ago (see John Nehrich's "D&H's 1907 Wooden Boxcars" in the December 1987 issue of RMC) - Archer rivets would make this approach far more refined than Andy's efforts 27(!) years ago.



 
"If you can't locate separate ends or the Sunshine kit suggest using a similar car - like the Funaro 3406 D&H boxcar with Reverse Hutchins Ends as a starting point. The Funaro kits are going to be far easier to source than the Sunshine Model."
Keep your eyes open - Funaro kits are readily available on the open market, and you can often get Funaro kits below list price directly from him at shows if you buy in quantity.
http://www.fandckits.com/HOFreight/3400.html

 
 
Ben Hom


Re: NC&STL XM 32 (not HM 32) rebuilds

Marty McGuirk
 

Peter,

I believe the reference is to Steam Era Freight Cars Reference Manual, Volume One: Box & Automobile Cars, by Ted Culotta.

Excellent overview of the history (with photos) of steam era freight cars - a must have for prototype modelers interested in the mid- to late steam era.

Steam Era Freight Cars Reference Manual, Volume One | Speedwitch Media

Marty McGuirk

 


Re: CAD library

Dennis Storzek
 

---In STMFC@..., <nvrr49@...> wrote :

"...  The newest SLA printer from Kudo 3D has a resolution of 37 microns, with the possibility of adjusting it down to 25 microns..."

Which is 1000 dpi, give or take a few pixels... each pixel being .001 across.
.
Interestingly, the price, seems to be heading steeply downward, but the resolution isn't improving all that much. This appears to be the same DLP technology that has been available from Envision Tech (Perfactory), for several years now, with a $70k price tag. Last year I explored the Asiga offering; same specs in a $7000 machine. Now this one is asking $3000. Be interesting to see what the ultimate life of these machines is.
.
IOne nice thing about this technology is it can apparently deal with overhanging features without building separate wax  support structures; the only support is each disjoined starting point needs it's own stem from the machine platen, but these are somewhat ahin to runners and gates on injection molded parts, and most modelers can deal with that.
.
The problem is, I don't want to own the machine, just use the service. While I don't have any particular love for Shapeways, they do have an easy to deal with business model, and apparently a rather large user base to keep the lights on. I've been hoping that when something that offers greater resolution comes along, that Shapeways will add thet to the multiple processes they already run. Of course, they would have to price it at a point where people would use it, but lower capital costs for the machines would help trim the price.
.
Dennis  Storzek


Re: NC&STL HM 32 rebuilds

Marty McGuirk
 

Peter,

Here's the link to the Sunshine Models Flyer on the NC XM-32s -

http://sunshinekits.com/sunimages/sun97a.pdf

 

The kits show up from time from time on eBay.

 

You could build your own. The trickiest part to fabricate will be the ends. I think someone used to make them (John Greene at Bethlehem Car Works, maybe????)

If you can't locate separate ends or the Sunshine kit suggest using a similar car - like the Funaro 3406 D&H boxcar with Reverse Hutchins Ends as a starting point.

The Funaro kits are going to be far easier to source than the Sunshine Model.

Glad to see you want some legit cars to put behind that Dixie!

Marty McGuirk


Re: LCL Load ca. 1900

riverman_vt@...
 

   Was this not a question that was left up to the owning road, or at least the road that originally

ordered the cars? I don't ever recall seeing a rule that cut levers had to extend to both sides of

the car. Those on which they extend only to one side always seem to be set up so that the end

to the right is always the one with the cut lever. Thus there should be no problem as at least

one of the two cars where uncoupling would be done would have a cut lever available.

 

Cordially, Don Valentine


 


Re: CAD library

Rod Miller
 

On 8/18/14, 8:40 PM, nvrr49@yahoo.com [STMFC] wrote:
I am glad Tom took the time to write all this up. I have 3d printed hundreds
of items, and used a couple different printers. Sharing files between
different printers does not work, in fact I have had to do complete redesigns
because of a software upgrade on a printer. It was worth it, the software
upgrade made the finished product that much better. Any files shared would
still need to be edited to fit particular printers. It can be done, but it
is not as easy as just grabbing a bunch of part files and assuming they will
work in any given printer. The newest SLA printer from Kudo 3D has a
resolution of 37 microns, with the possibility of adjusting it down to 25
microns. If it shows up on time, I will have examples in clinics at the
Amherst Show. Kent Hurley nvrr49.blogspot.com ---In STMFC@yahoogroups.com,
<pullmanboss@...> wrote : Some notes from the real world…

When you get to your late 70s your list of “not in my lifetime” possibilities
is considerably longer than it is for you youngsters in your 60s. That
certainly colors my view of 3D printing and libraries of CAD files. So what
follows is the view of someone more likely to receive a pacemaker than a 3D
printed Pacemaker boxcar in the foreseeable future.

I won’t discuss 3D printers except for how they affect the design process. We
had an extended thread on 3D printers in July 2013 which may be worth
reviewing.

The two printing processes I use the most are stereolithography and mutltijet
modeling. Ross (no last name) mentioned 3D Systems’ Viper high resolution SLA
(stereolithography) machine. Shapeways’ FD and FUD (frosted detail and
frosted ultra detail) parts are created on 3D Systems’ even higher resolution
MJM (multijet modeling) printers. SLA builds by drawing the image of each
layer on the surface of a UV curable liquid resin. It’s a vector process. In
hi-res mode the laser beam is 0.002” dia, the layers are 0.002” thick, and
the surfaces are the smoothest of any 3D printing process, but it can’t do
parts with overhanging features. MJM printing is a raster process (think 3D
inkjet printing), with resolution of 600 x 600 DPI (and increasing) and
layers less than 0.001” thick. It’s faster and less expensive than SLA, the
surfaces are slightly textured and it can handle overhanging features.
Surface texture is no big deal for 1:1 objects, but it can be for our
miniatures.

A good designer has to be familiar with the capabilities of the manufacturing
process he’s designing for. By their nature, stereolithography underbuilds
features slightly, and MJM machines overbuild by a similar amount. Not a
factor unless you’re designing things like ¾” dia rivet heads in HO. For SLA
designs I increase the head diameter by 1/8”; for MJM designs I decrease it
by the same amount. It may seem like no big deal, 1/8” in HO is just under
0.0015”. But if I use the same design file to print an uncompensated ¾” rivet
head in each process, the difference in the printed rivets (5/8” SLA vs.
7/8” MJM) is 40% and is very noticeable. Prototype rivet heads are not full
hemispheres, but to get all the rivets to print properly and be visible
through a couple of coats of paint, I make them full hemispheric domes and
put each on a 1/8” riser. If a car uses several different sizes of rivets,
and you want to represent the visual differences, it may be necessary to
design the smallest ones so they print reliably, even if that makes them
larger that they should be, and increase the other sizes accordingly. In HO I
know if I want to represent a series of surfaces that are offset from one
another, like a window frame, or a rivet batten on a car side, the layers
must be separated by at least 3/8” for the layering to be noticeable. In
other words, it helps if you can apply the precision touch of an engineering
designer with the eye of an artist.

So there we require two different design files for a single part, depending
on what process will be used to print it. For HO. But those HO rivets won’t
print if reduced to N scale, and they are probably too large if printed in O
scale. The differences in the level of detail required for the various scales
is what tempers my enthusiasm for a CAD library. Ignoring the design audit
issue, a printer will try to print everything in the design file, but parts
smaller than the resolution limit of the printer will be blobs on the
surface. So a highly detailed design file that prints gangbuster parts in O
scale will have to be dumbed down considerably for the smaller scales. And
vice-versa. Too many variables for this old mind to process.

Finally, Dennis mentioned that I “gamed” Shapeways’ process to get good parts
by ganging three parts facing in different directions. It’s actually five
different directions, as shown here: www.pullmanproject.com/Gaming.jpg
http://www.pullmanproject.com/Gaming.jpg

Those are left- and right-handed versions of compressor boxes used on
passenger cars with B&O-style York air conditioning. The plate is
approximately 3” x 3” and cost $54 from Shapeways. Too expensive for parts to
use as-is, but just fine for resin casting masters. Shapeways built the plate
on edge and I did get two good parts. But only two.

Nothing is as simple or as straightforward as it seems.

Tom Madden
I have a little different view of the library than it being a
collection of print-ready files (as implied by the 1st para.
above).

My experience is limited to AutoCad's Mechanical Desktop and
a little Solidworks. While working in MDT, if, say a certain
size counter bored hole was needed for the part, one could
access a library of standard parts, find the appropriate hole,
and add it to
the drawing. When that completed drawing was printed, the
source of the hole had been long lost.

So for say, drawing a steam loco driver center, if there
were libraries of rims, spokes, counterweights, axle
bosses with different crank pin offsets for different strokes,
one could assemble those parts into a driver center. All
parts nominally would 1:1, the center would be assembled
1:1, then scaled by 1/48 or 1/87 or whatever to produce
the size part wanted. Of course I oversimplify, as finishing
work such as adding fillets etc. would be needed to "clean
up" the drawing of the center, but none of that work in
this example would require drawing new parts of the center,
all those parts would have come from a library.

AFIK there are standardized formats for library parts, e.g.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6fN2wHDYHs
A little searching will turn many more examples.

So what I was suggesting for NMRA consideration was drawing
parts libraries, e.g., reefer hinges, corner steps. I realize
that many of these items may already exist as parts of moldings
in HO scale, but in O scale in which I model, there is a
paucity of individual detail parts. If the NMRA-managed
libraries were all in a standard format it would seem that
many would find use for the parts therein.
--
Rod Miller
Handcraftsman
===
Custom 2-rail O Scale Models: Drives, | O Scale West / S West
Repairs, Steam Loco Building, More | 2015 Meet is Feb 5 - 7
http://www.rodmiller.com | http://www.oscalewest.com


Re: NC&STL XM 32 (not HM 32) rebuilds

pburr47@...
 

Sorry, I'm kind of new to all this...I don't recognize "SEFCRM" and can't find through Google. I assume it's Steam Era Freight Car something, of course. If anyone has one of the Sunshine kits that they would be willing to sell, please let me know.


Re: NC

Peter Burr <pburr47@...>
 

Yes, of course I meant XM...brain farts are all too frequent around here ;-)

--


Re: LCL Load ca. 1900

Tony Thompson
 

Douglas Harding wrote:

 
I was just reading the GN plywood boxcar article in the June 2014 RMC. On page 66 the photo caption states “The 1944 vintage express boxcars in the 2501-2524 series were identical to the freight boxcars in the 44025-44399 series but for … coupler release rod to both sides …” Granted these were express boxcars.

   Exactly the point. They operated with passenger equipment, thus the double levers. 

Tony Thompson             Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705         www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, tony@...
Publishers of books on railroad history





Re: CAD library

nvrr49@...
 

I am glad Tom took the time to write all this up.  I have 3d printed hundreds of items, and used a couple different printers.  Sharing files between different printers does not work, in fact I have had to do complete redesigns because of a software upgrade on a printer.  It was worth it, the software upgrade made the finished product that much better.  Any files shared would still need to be edited to fit particular printers.  It can be done, but it is not as easy as just grabbing a bunch of part files and assuming they will work in any given printer.  The newest SLA printer from Kudo 3D has a resolution of 37 microns, with the possibility of adjusting it down to 25 microns.  If it shows up on time, I will have examples in clinics at the Amherst Show.
Kent Hurley
nvrr49.blogspot.com
---In STMFC@..., <pullmanboss@...> wrote :

Some notes from the real world…

 

When you get to your late 70s your list of “not in my lifetime” possibilities is considerably longer than it is for you youngsters in your 60s. That certainly colors my view of 3D printing and libraries of CAD files. So what follows is the view of someone more likely to receive a pacemaker than a 3D printed Pacemaker boxcar in the foreseeable future.

 

I won’t discuss 3D printers except for how they affect the design process. We had an extended thread on 3D printers in July 2013 which may be worth reviewing.

 

The two printing processes I use the most are stereolithography and mutltijet modeling. Ross (no last name) mentioned 3D Systems’ Viper high resolution SLA (stereolithography) machine. Shapeways’ FD and FUD (frosted detail and frosted ultra detail) parts are created on 3D Systems’ even higher resolution MJM (multijet modeling) printers. SLA builds by drawing the image of each layer on the surface of a UV curable liquid resin. It’s a vector process. In hi-res mode the laser beam is 0.002” dia, the layers are 0.002” thick, and the surfaces are the smoothest of any 3D printing process, but it can’t do parts with overhanging features. MJM printing is a raster process (think 3D inkjet printing), with resolution of 600 x 600 DPI  (and increasing) and layers less than 0.001” thick. It’s faster and less expensive than SLA, the surfaces are slightly textured and it can handle overhanging features. Surface texture is no big deal for 1:1 objects, but it can be for our miniatures.

 

A good designer has to be familiar with the capabilities of the manufacturing process he’s designing for. By their nature, stereolithography underbuilds features slightly, and MJM machines overbuild by a similar amount. Not a factor unless you’re designing things like ¾” dia rivet heads in HO. For SLA designs I increase the head diameter by 1/8”; for MJM designs I decrease it by the same amount. It may seem like no big deal, 1/8” in HO is just under 0.0015”. But if I use the same design file to print an uncompensated ¾” rivet head in each process,  the difference in the printed rivets (5/8” SLA vs. 7/8” MJM) is 40% and is very noticeable. Prototype rivet heads are not full hemispheres, but to get all the rivets to print properly and be visible through a couple of coats of paint, I make them full hemispheric domes and put each on a 1/8” riser. If a car uses several different sizes of rivets, and you want to represent the visual differences, it may be necessary to design the smallest ones so they print reliably, even if that makes them larger that they should be, and increase the other sizes accordingly. In HO I know if I want to represent a series of surfaces that are offset from one another, like a window frame, or a rivet batten on a car side, the layers must be separated by at least 3/8” for the layering to be noticeable. In other words, it helps if you can apply the precision touch of an engineering designer with the eye of an artist.

 

So there we require two different design files for a single part, depending on what process will be used to print it. For HO. But those HO rivets won’t print if reduced to N scale, and they are probably too large if printed in O scale. The differences in the level of detail required for the various scales is what tempers my enthusiasm for a CAD library. Ignoring the design audit issue, a printer will try to print everything in the design file, but parts smaller than the resolution limit of the printer will be blobs on the surface. So a highly detailed design file that prints gangbuster parts in O scale will have to be dumbed down considerably for the smaller scales. And vice-versa. Too many variables for this old mind to process.

 

Finally, Dennis mentioned that I “gamed” Shapeways’ process to get good parts by ganging three parts facing in different directions. It’s actually five different directions, as shown here:

www.pullmanproject.com/Gaming.jpg

 

Those are left- and right-handed versions of compressor boxes used on passenger cars with B&O-style York air conditioning. The plate is approximately 3” x 3” and cost $54 from Shapeways. Too expensive for parts to use as-is, but just fine for resin casting masters. Shapeways built the plate on edge and I did get two good parts. But only two.

 

Nothing is as simple or as straightforward as it seems.

 

Tom Madden

 


Re: LCL Load ca. 1900

Douglas Harding
 

I was just reading the GN plywood boxcar article in the June 2014 RMC. On page 66 the photo caption states “The 1944 vintage express boxcars in the 2501-2524 series were identical to the freight boxcars in the 44025-44399 series but for … coupler release rod to both sides …” Granted these were express boxcars.

 

Doug Harding

www.iowacentralrr.org

 


Re: NC&STL XM 32 (not HM 32) rebuilds

Steven D Johnson
 

Sunshine Models NC&StL XM 32 HO kits, if any are still available:

 

http://www.sunshinekits.com/sunimages/sun97a.pdf

 

Steve Johnson

 

 

From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...]
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2014 9:51 PM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: Re: [STMFC] NC&STL HM 32 rebuilds

 

 

There is an article in July 1990 Mainline Modeler covering these very cars. Also there is a picture in SEFCRM vol 1page 83.

 

Al Smith

 

On Monday, August 18, 2014 6:26 PM, "pburr47@... [STMFC]" <STMFC@...> wrote:

 

 

How's *that* for esoterica ? ;-) I've had the great good fortune to land a copy of FREIGHT CARS JOURNAL No. 63, which covers the NC&STL. In it, I discovered three pictures of cars from class HM 32 (though one car is marked HM only) showing the unusual, apparently home brewed car ends used in the early 1940's rebuilds of these cars. Suddenly bit with a grave case of the STMFC/RPM bug, I'm hoping to find out more information about these cars. Any help with more photos and suggestions for where to begin modeling these (apparently) unique car ends, etc. will be much appreciated! Thanks! Peter Burr Nashville

 


Re: NC&STL HM 32 rebuilds

Allan Smith
 

There is an article in July 1990 Mainline Modeler covering these very cars. Also there is a picture in SEFCRM vol 1page 83.

Al Smith


On Monday, August 18, 2014 6:26 PM, "pburr47@... [STMFC]" wrote:


 
How's *that* for esoterica ? ;-) I've had the great good fortune to land a copy of FREIGHT CARS JOURNAL No. 63, which covers the NC&STL. In it, I discovered three pictures of cars from class HM 32 (though one car is marked HM only) showing the unusual, apparently home brewed car ends used in the early 1940's rebuilds of these cars. Suddenly bit with a grave case of the STMFC/RPM bug, I'm hoping to find out more information about these cars. Any help with more photos and suggestions for where to begin modeling these (apparently) unique car ends, etc. will be much appreciated! Thanks! Peter Burr Nashville



Re: NC&STL HM 32 rebuilds

David
 

You mean the XM32 box cars? The ends on those were multi-piece inverse Hutchins ends. NKP had some 40' cars with the same setup.David Thompson


Re: LCL Load ca. 1900

Ray Breyer
 

No's a pretty definitive word. And can be problematic.

I just took a stroll through the DL&W company photos, and freight cars with full length cut levers are everywhere. Maybe not ubiquitous, and they're definitely more common on gondolas than on hoppers, but there are loads of examples of turn of the century boxcars cars in service with full length levers too. I haven't found any reefers or tank cars with them yet, but 18,000 images is sort of hard to go through quickly.

That all said, in the "popular era" (1955-1960) everyone's right: no real use of full length levers. Then again, this thread IS about a photo from 1900.
 
Ray Breyer
Elgin, IL




From: "Tony Thompson tony@... [STMFC]"
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2014 6:43 PM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: LCL Load ca. 1900

Pat Wade wrote:
I just noticed that the car's uncoupling lever only extends to one side of the car. I had always assumed that they ran to both sides.
    No, only on passenger cars (and many locomotives). An example of a freight car so equipped was the NWP USRA double-sheathed cars which had been used as express box cars, and naturally receiving double-sided uncoupling levers. When they returned to freight service, they kept those levers. But I would say that's an exception that proves the rule.



Tony Thompson       



NC&STL HM 32 rebuilds

pburr47@...
 

How's *that* for esoterica ? ;-) I've had the great good fortune to land a copy of FREIGHT CARS JOURNAL No. 63, which covers the NC&STL. In it, I discovered three pictures of cars from class HM 32 (though one car is marked HM only) showing the unusual, apparently home brewed car ends used in the early 1940's rebuilds of these cars. Suddenly bit with a grave case of the STMFC/RPM bug, I'm hoping to find out more information about these cars. Any help with more photos and suggestions for where to begin modeling these (apparently) unique car ends, etc. will be much appreciated! Thanks! Peter Burr Nashville

58221 - 58240 of 185219